Title: Comparison of procedure and predictability between WHO partogram and Paperless Partogram
Authors: Dr Deepak Kumar Giri, Prof Dr Lalmohan Nayak, Dr Dillip Kumar Dalai
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v7i7.107
Abstract
WHO partogram,is cumbersome and time consuming procedure for overburdened Indian labour room setup very few clinicians use it. To circumvent the above problem Debdas (2006) introduced a very simple almost timeless mental method called ‘Paperless Partogram’ which is based on Friedman’s rule.
Objectives: Assessment of procedural difference, predictability of ‘time’ of delivery, user friendliness and fetal outcome between WHO and Paperless partogram
Material: Any uncomplicated patient irrespective of age and parity in spontaneous onset labour with cephalic presentation who is at least 4cm dilated carrying pregnancy of 37 completed week
Method: In paperless group, right at first PV the Expected TIME of delivery (ETD) was calculated by mentally adding to the time-point of PV - the number cm left to full dilatation using Friedman’s formula of cervical dilatation of 1cm/hour. Birth attendant has to add 4 hours to the alert ETD to get ‘Action ETD’. Both the ETDs were written in the front of case sheet for everybody’s attention. In WHO group PV was done 2 hourly and plotted on graph in usual way.
Results: Around 75% of cases of both group wereage ranged between 25-30 years, primipara and of gestation between 38-40 weeks. Vaginal delivery occurred in: WHO-87%, Paperless-89%. One minute Apgar: WHO-97%, Paperless-96% - highly comparable. Even the augmentation rate (74% in Paperless, 77% in WHO group) and NICU admission rate (1.4% in paperless, 1.62%) were also comparable.
The only difference found was in ‘user friendliness’. While in Paperless group 100% became fan of the method, 96% of WHO group expressed that they would like to switch to paperless method, only 4% were not sure.
Conclusion: Paperless Partogram is 1) equally effective and efficient as the WHO method as a labour management tool, 2) The great point about it is-it is highly user friendly and hence ideal for resource poor situations.
References
- Friedman EA. Primigravid labour. A graphic statistical analysis. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1955;6(6):567-89.
- World Health Organization. The application of the WHO par. tograph in the management of labour. Report of a WHO multicéntre study1990-91. Maternal Health and Safe Motherhood Programme, Geneva, 1994 (WHO document WHO/FHE/IVISM/94.4).
- World Health Organization. World Health Organization partograph in management of labour. Lancet, 1994;343:1399-1404.
- Zupan J. Perinatal mortality in developing countries. N Engi J Med. 2005;352:2047-8. [PubMed]
- Geneva World Health Organization, 2007 Maternal mortality m 2005 Estimates developed by WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA and the World Bank.
- Friedman E. Graphic analysis of labor. Am J Obstet 2. Gynecol. 1954;68:1568—75. [PubMed]
- Philpott RH, Castle WM. Cervicographs in the management of labour in primigravidae. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw. 1972;79:592-. 8. [PubMedi
- World Health Organization partograph in management of labour. Lancet. 1994;343:1399—404.[PubMed]
- Groeschel N, Clover P. The partograph. Used daily but rarely questioned. Aust J Midwifery. 2001;14:22-7. [PubMed]
- Lavender T, Malcohnson L. Is the partogram a help or a hindrance? Pract Midwife. 1999;2:23-7.[PubMed]
- Walraven GE. WHO partograph. Lancet. 1994;344:617. [PubMed]
- Lavender T, Hart A, Smyth RN/I. Effect of partogram use on outcomes for women in spontaneous labour at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008:CD005461. [PubMed]
- Debdas AK. Paperless partogram. 41st Annual Scientific Sessions 2008: Sri Laitka College of Obstetrics and Gynaecolcigists. SLJOG vol. 30. 2008;1:124.