{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,30]],"date-time":"2026-07-30T22:46:30Z","timestamp":1785451590446,"version":"3.56.0"},"reference-count":11,"publisher":"Wiley","issue":"5","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2003,12,22]],"date-time":"2003-12-22T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1072051200000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":600,"URL":"http:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/termsAndConditions#vor"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["BJOG"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2002,5]]},"abstract":"<jats:p><jats:bold>Objective\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/jats:bold> To determine how long it takes from the decision to achieve delivery by non\u2010elective caesarean section (DDI), the influence on this interval, and the impact on neonatal condition at birth.<\/jats:p><jats:p><jats:bold>Design\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/jats:bold> Twelve months prospective data collection on all non\u2010elective caesarean sections.<\/jats:p><jats:p><jats:bold>Methods\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/jats:bold> Prospective collection of data relating to all caesarean sections in 1996 in a major teaching hospital obstetric unit was conducted, without the knowledge of the other clinicians providing clinical care. Details of the indication for section, the day and time of the decision and the interval till delivery were recorded as well as the seniority of the surgeon, and condition of the baby at birth.<\/jats:p><jats:p><jats:bold>Results\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/jats:bold> The mean time from decision\u2010to\u2010delivery for 100 emergency intrapartum caesarean sections was 42.9 minutes for fetal distress and 71.1 minutes for 230 without fetal distress (<jats:styled-content><jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic> &lt; 0.0001<\/jats:styled-content>). For 22 \u2018crash\u2019 sections the mean time from decision\u2010to\u2010delivery was 27.4 minutes; for 13 urgent antepartum deliveries for fetal reasons it was 124.7 minutes and for 21 with maternal reasons it was 97.4 minutes. The seniority of the surgeon managing the patient did not appear to influence the interval, nor did the time of day or day of the week when the delivery occurred. Intrapartum sections were quicker the more advanced the labour, and general anaesthesia was associated with shorter intervals than regional anaesthesia for emergency caesarean section for fetal distress (<jats:styled-content><jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic> &lt; 0.001<\/jats:styled-content>). Babies born within one hour of the decision tended to be more acidaemic than those born later, irrespective of the indication for delivery. Babies tended to be in better condition when a time from decision\u2010to\u2010delivery was not recorded than those for whom the information had been recorded.<\/jats:p><jats:p><jats:bold>Conclusion\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/jats:bold> Fewer than 40% intrapartum deliveries by caesarean section for fetal distress were achieved within 30 minutes of the decision, despite that being the unit standard. There was, however, no evidence to indicate that overall an interval up to 120 minutes was detrimental to the neonate unless the delivery was a \u2018crash\u2019 caesarean section. These data thus do not provide evidence to sustain the recommendation of a standard of 30 minutes for intrapartum delivery by caesarean section.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1471-0528.2002.01323.x","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2003,12,22]],"date-time":"2003-12-22T16:13:58Z","timestamp":1072109638000},"page":"498-504","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":79,"title":["What is a reasonable time from decision\u2010to\u2010delivery by caesarean section? Evidence from 415 deliveries"],"prefix":"10.1111","volume":"109","author":[{"given":"I.Z.","family":"MacKenzie","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Inez","family":"Cooke","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"311","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2003,12,22]]},"reference":[{"key":"e_1_2_6_2_2","first-page":"1348","article-title":"Indications for cesarean section: final statement of the panel of the National Consensus Conference on Aspects of Cesarean Birth","volume":"134","author":"Hannah WJ","year":"1986","journal-title":"Can Med Assoc J"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_3_2","unstructured":"Maternal & Child Health Research Consortium.Confidential Enquiry into Stillbirths and Deaths in Infancy. 7th Annual Report 2000:41\u201352."},{"key":"e_1_2_6_4_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.322.7298.1334"},{"issue":"17","key":"e_1_2_6_5_2","first-page":"65","article-title":"Has \u2018Changing Childbirth\u2019 increased caesarean section rates?","volume":"105","author":"Cooke IE","year":"1998","journal-title":"Br J Obstet Gynaecol"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_6_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.3109\/01443619109027807"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_7_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1471-0528.2000.tb13263.x"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_8_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/0029-7844(94)P4401-9"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_9_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0140-6736(82)91462-3"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_10_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/0002-9378(83)90254-5"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_11_2","first-page":"168","volume-title":"Perinatal Events and Brain Damage","author":"Visser GHA","year":"1987"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_12_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/0002-9378(89)90269-X"}],"container-title":["BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics &amp; Gynaecology"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/api.wiley.com\/onlinelibrary\/tdm\/v1\/articles\/10.1111%2Fj.1471-0528.2002.01323.x","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1111\/j.1471-0528.2002.01323.x","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2023,10,17]],"date-time":"2023-10-17T15:13:01Z","timestamp":1697555581000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/10.1111\/j.1471-0528.2002.01323.x"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2002,5]]},"references-count":11,"journal-issue":{"issue":"5","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2002,5]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1111\/j.1471-0528.2002.01323.x"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1471-0528.2002.01323.x","archive":["Portico"],"relation":{},"ISSN":["1470-0328","1471-0528"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1470-0328","type":"print"},{"value":"1471-0528","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2002,5]]},"assertion":[{"value":"2003-12-22","order":2,"name":"published","label":"Published","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}}]}}