Proper maintenance of modified national partogram: A retrospective audit in a tertiary care center
J Kajendran 1,   M Patabendige 1  
,   HSS Perera 2,   A Liyanage 2
More details
Hide details
University Obstetrics Unit, North Colombo Teaching Hospital, Ragama, Sri Lanka
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Kelaniya, Ragama, Sri Lanka
M Patabendige   

Malitha Patabendige, University Obstetrics Unit, North Colombo Teaching Hospital, Ragama, Sri Lanka.
Submission date: 2017-06-14
Acceptance date: 2017-11-07
Online publication date: 2018-06-04
Publication date: 2019-10-31
Pol. Ann. Med. 2019;26(1):20–23
The partogram is usually a pre-printed paper form, on which labour observations are recorded. 

To assess the standards of maintaining the National Partogram in University Obstetrics Unit, Colombo North Teaching Hospital, Ragama, Sri Lanka.

Material and methods:
Retrospective analysis of conveniently selected partograms was conducted between November and December 2016. Gold standard is 100% accurate maintenance of the components of the partogram and 100% accurate interventions whenever it is necessary.

Results and discussion:
Total of 121 partograms were studied. Mean (SD) age was 28.3 years (5.6). Mean parity was 1.6 (0.8). Mean gestational age was 38.4 (2.6). In total, 103 (85.1%) women had a vaginal delivery. Those who had special problems, only 6 out of 43 had written special instructions. Out of all, 24 (31.2%) had substandard documentation of contractions. Out of all partograms with documented duration of contractions, 17 (21.8%) had substandard documentation. Fetal heart rate properly documented in 94 (77.7%). Action and alert lines have been drawn in 24 (63.2%) high risk pregnancies and have been drawn only in 1 case (16.7%) of trial of scar out of 6. However, only 115 (95.0%) had a good 1-minute and 119 (98.4%) had a good 5-minute APGAR score.

Although neonatal outcome is satisfactory, standard documentation of partogram is poor. This needs to be improved by thorough education and frequent auditing. After this audit, a specific seminar was conducted using SLCOG partogram training module.

We would like to thank all the postpartum women participated in the study.
No sources of funding available.
Authors have no conflicts of interests and no funding sources available.
Lavender T, Hart A, Smyth RMD. Effect of partogram use on outcomes for women in spontaneous labour at term. Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews. 2013 (7). Art. No: CD005461.
World Health Organisation. WHO recommendations for augmentation of labour. Geneva: WHO; 2014.
Friedman EA. The graphic analysis of labor. Am J Obst Gyne. 1954; 68:1568–1575.
Philpott RH, Castle WM. Cervicographs in the management of labour in primigravidae. I. The alert line for detecting abnormal labour. J Obst Gynae Br Commonw. 1972; 79(7):592–598.
Mathews JE, Rajaratnam A, George A et al. Comparison of two World Health Organisation partographs. Int J Gynae Obst. 2007; 96(2):147–150.
PATH. Intrapartum-related events. Technologies for Health Consultative Meeting: MNCH Pathways. 2012. Available at: UPDATED-March-15-2012-c.pdf. Accessed April 6, 2017.
World Health Organisation. World health organisation partograph in management of labour. World health organisation maternal health and safe motherhood programme. Lancet. 1994; 343(8910):1399–1404.
Lavender T, Malcolmson L. Is the partogram a help or a hindrance? Pract Midwife. 1999; 2(8):23–27.
Yisma E, Dessalegn B, Astatkie A et al. Knowledge and utilisation of partograph among obstetric care givers in public health institutions of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013;13(17):1–9.
Orhue AAE, Aziken ME, Osemwenkha AP. Partograph as a tool for team work management of spontaneous labor. Niger J Clin Pract. 2012;15(1):1–8.
Qureshi ZP, Sekadde-Kigondu C, Mutiso SM. Rapid assessment of partograph utilisation in selected maternity units in Kenya. East Afr Med J. 2010;87(6):235–241.
Opiah MM, Ofi AB, Essien EJ, Monjok E. Knowledge and utilization of the partograph among midwives in the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria. Afr J Reprod Health. 2012; 16(1):125–132.
Gans-Lartey F, O’Brien B, Gyekye FO et al. The relationship between the use of the partograph and birth outcomes at Korle-Bu teaching hospital. Midwifery. 2013;29(5):461–467.
Yisma E, Dessalegn B, Astatkie A et al. Completion of the modified World Health Organisation (WHO) partograph during labour in public health institutions of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Reprod Health J. 2013;10(23):1–7.
Walraven GE. WHO partograph. Lancet. 1994;344:617.
Pattinson RC, Howarth GR, Mdluli W, et al. Aggressive or expectant management of labour: a randomised trial. BJOG. 2003;110(5):457–461.
Walss-Rodriguez RJ, Gudino-Ruiz F, Tapia-Rodriguez S. Comparative study between Friedman’s partogram and conventional descriptive partogram. Ginecol Obstet Mex. 1987;55:318–322 [in Spanish].
Bosse G, Massawe S, Jahn A. The partograph in daily practice: It’s quality that matters. Int J Gyne Obstet. 2002;77(3):243–244.
Fawole AO, Hunyinbo KI, Adekanle DA. Knowledge and utilization of the partograph among obstetric care givers in South West Nigeria. Afr J Reprod Health. 2008;12(1):22–29.
Goonewardene M, de Silva C, Medawala M, et al. The National Partogram – What changes are required to improve its utilization?. Abstracts of 45th Annual Scientific Sessions of the Sri Lanka College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists 17th – 23rd October 2012 “Investing in women’s health”. Sri Lanka J Obst Gynae. 2012;34(5):37–38.
Sri Lanka College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Partogram training. Available at: Accessed May 18, 2017.