OBJECTIVES: The study documented facility-based obstetric practices for normal labor in Egypt for the first time, to determine their relationship to evidence-based medicine. This paper describes the labor augmentation pattern observed. METHODS: 176 cases of normal labor were observed by medically-trained observers using a checklist. Ward activities were also documented. Observed women were interviewed postpartum and all findings were shared with the providers for their feedback. RESULTS: Labor was augmented in 91% (165) of the labors observed; this was inappropriate for 93% or 154 women. Reasons for inappropriateness were: oxytocin ordered at the first vaginal exam (41%); in spite of intact membranes (36%), at the time of membrane rupture (42%), in spite of good progress (24%), or a combination of these. The monitoring of oxytocin-receiving women and their babies was inadequate. CONCLUSIONS: Labor augmentation and monitoring deviated from evidence-based guidelines. Obstacles to implementing protocols need to be explored.
OBJECTIVES: The study documented facility-based obstetric practices for normal labor in Egypt for the first time, to determine their relationship to evidence-based medicine. This paper describes the labor augmentation pattern observed. METHODS: 176 cases of normal labor were observed by medically-trained observers using a checklist. Ward activities were also documented. Observed women were interviewed postpartum and all findings were shared with the providers for their feedback. RESULTS:Labor was augmented in 91% (165) of the labors observed; this was inappropriate for 93% or 154 women. Reasons for inappropriateness were: oxytocin ordered at the first vaginal exam (41%); in spite of intact membranes (36%), at the time of membrane rupture (42%), in spite of good progress (24%), or a combination of these. The monitoring of oxytocin-receiving women and their babies was inadequate. CONCLUSIONS:Labor augmentation and monitoring deviated from evidence-based guidelines. Obstacles to implementing protocols need to be explored.
Authors: S Miller; M Cordero; A L Coleman; J Figueroa; S Brito-Anderson; R Dabagh; V Calderon; F Cáceres; A J Fernandez; M Nunez Journal: Int J Gynaecol Obstet Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 3.561
Authors: B Dujardin; M Boutsen; I De Schampheleire; R Kulker; J P Manshande; J Bailey; E Wollast; P Buekens Journal: Int J Gynaecol Obstet Date: 1995-09 Impact factor: 3.561
Authors: Shalini Singh; Jyotika A Kashyap; Nomita Chandhiok; Vipin Kumar; Vishwajeet Singh; Richa Goel Journal: Indian J Med Res Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 2.375